JASWINDER SINGH Vs. PARSHOTAM LAL SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure prays for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2005 passed by the lower appellate Court by reversing the view taken by the Civil Judge in his judgment and decree dated 18.7.2002. The appellate Court has found that defendant-petitioner is liable to pay sale proceeds of 1200 shares @ Rs. 21/- each with interest thereon @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 13.6.1997. However, the plaintiff-respondent had restricted their claim to Rs. 24,000/-. The suit has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- along with interest pendente lite @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of its payment and also future interest @ 12% per annum.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 24,000/- against the defendant-petitioner alleging that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had been dealing in shares on behalf of himself and plaintiff-respondent No. 2 his wife with Jaswinder Singh defendant-petitioner. It was alleged that on April 19, 1997 he handed over 1200 share certificates to defendant-petitioner for sale at appropriate time. The details of the certificate have been given in the body of the plaint. On or about 13.6.1997 defendant-petitioner is alleged to have sold these shares to one Anirudh Khullar who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 by forging the signatures of the plaintiff-respondents on the transfer deeds. It has further been alleged that defendant No. 1 Anirudh Khullar had disclosed it to the plaintiff-respondents that a receipt memo giving the details of 1200 shares was handed over to the defendant-petitioner and another memo has also been given to him showing that the shares were sold at Rs. 21/- per share. On 10.4.2000, defendant-petitioner have given to the plaintiff-respondents receipt memo dated 13.6.1997 in which distinctive numbers of all the 1200 shares have been given. However, no payment of the price of the share was made. The defendant-petitioner as well as defendant No. 1 Anirudh Khullar filed their separate written statements. The trial Court dismissed the suit whereas the lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court on the core issue as to whether the plaintiff-respondents were entitled to recover Rs. 24,000/- along with interest. The findings have been recorded by the lower appellate Court on the basis of cogent evidence showing that 1200 shares along with signed shares transfer certificates were given by the City Investment Centre owned by defendant-petitioner to a sub-broker namely Brisk Financial Consultants Private Limited, New Delhi who sold the same through stock exchange. The sale proceeds were credited in the account of City Investment Centre i.e. defendant-petitioner. It would be apposite to make a reference to certain portion of para 13 of the judgment showing conclusions recorded by the Appellate Court which read as follows :-

(3.) THERE is no material irregularity or jurisdictional error in exercise of power by the lower appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code. As a matter of fact, the first appellate Court is the final Court of fact and this Court cannot admit a revision petition or an appeal unless it raises to substantive question of law. No revision would be admissible unless a jurisdictional error is found. No such jurisdictional error is shown warranting admission of the petition. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and same is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.